Cliff Whittaker

It happens a lot to me with my Outlook email address, but not with Talktalk or Gmail addresses. (I find it convenient to have several email addresses) I use Mozilla Thunderbird as my email tool/browser on my laptop (instead of MS Outlook or Webmail). I have set Thunderbird to not put anything in Junk/Spam. Nothing from my gmail or talktalk accounts is ever filtered at all, but I often find emails to my outlook account going to Spam - but it isn't indicated unless I actually open the Spam folder and check! I have exactly the same issue/behaviour on my android phone. I really hate Microsoft's 'we know better than you so we make you do it our way' attitude.

Steve J - I hope you have misunderstood. Both documents were produced by the same people. The first was the submission before the hearings. The second supplements the first and was added to comment on points and possible misunderstandings that emerged during the oral evidence discussions.

Okay - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Leichtenstein are not Members of EASA as EU States are, which means they don't get a vote in the rulemaking committees. But they are bound by treaty to follow the rules and their aviation authorities issue certificates that have full validity in EU Member States, as those issued by the CAA do. These four non-EU States are present at the the EU meetings where the wording of the rules is decided before being passed to the Parliament for adoption. They engage in the debates and give their view. Having no formal vote makes little difference as votes are rarely called in these committees. The EU Commissioners are skilled at getting consensus. I know this because used to attend some of these meetings as a CAA specialist supporting the UK DfT officials. The point I tried to make in my post above is that we are almost guaranteed to be following EU rules for aviation by one of the following routes: 1. We will still be in the EU 2. We will join the Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Leichtenstein group 3. The UK government will pass UK national legislation that is copied from the EU rules.

As part of the planning for Brexit - Deal of some kind or No deal - the CAA and DfT have prepared a carbon copy of the EU/EASA aviation regulations, but with "CAA" substituted for "EASA" or the "Agency" where appropriate, plus some editorial tidying up to make it read properly. When/if Brexit happens there will be new UK aviation legislation, probably alongside rather than within the ANO that will keep there rules in the UK the same as in the EU. Of course it would be simpler and easier for the UK to simply sign a treaty to be an EASA Member State like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Leichtenstein, but the UK making agreements with the EU seems to be beyond us at present. So, the CAA / DfT declared plan is that we stick with EU rules for aviation by either: staying in the EU; staying in EASA; or implementing UK legislation that is a carbon copy. (Delete as appropriate). Then again there will be a general election soon (or not), so the plan might change - but I doubt it.

This is a statement of government policy following a public consultation - summarised by the minister to the HofC yesterday. The only new thing in it is expansion of the exclusion zone around 'protected airfields' (all airports and some others - there is a list on the CAA website) to more than the 1km already in force. They have produced a diagram that seems unnecessarily complicated to me, given that the bit in line with the runway centerline only juts out of the circle by 0.4 km. They could just have had a 5km circle. Anyway, they will change the law on this soon and provided your site is more than 5km from a protected aerodrome there will be no effect on you. The good news is that the document says the government still supports the exemptions that allow model flyers and FPV flyers to fly above 400ft as we always have. My fear was that the media frenzy around the Gatwick incident might jeopardise that. The requirements for all operators of small unmanned aircraft over 250g (drones and conventional model aircraft) to be registered and for remote pilots to pass a knowledge test was put into the law last summer and is due to become active this November - so the die is already cast. And the document says that the government is not minded to allow a blanket exemption to model flyers. However, the exemptions already in force indicate that BMFA and others have already had effective conversations with the powers that be and no doubt they will try their best to agree some arrangements to make this as easy as possible for association members. (Note that there is no government proposal to register individual aircraft). So unless you are flying within 5 km of an airport/licensed aerodrome nothing has changed. Keep calm and carry on! Edited By Cliff Whittaker on 08/01/2019 10:40:05

Posted by Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 17:14:55:   The problem for us is that the government apparently can't write legislation that treats model flying (which, whether we like it or not, now includes flying quadcopters for photography, FPV and racing) differently from someone who buys a drone online and uses it for illegal or antisocial purposes. Actually, it can. And has. The new ANO takes great care in the wording to avoid the word "all" {drones} and instead uses the word "certain" {drones} where it matters most to us model flyers. This in principle anticipates exemptions and/or block allocations to - for example - model flyers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm afraid I don't agree. My point was that the legislation - the Air Navigation Order (ANO) - does not distinguish between drones and model aircraft. The ANO articles apply to Small Unmanned Aircraft - also abbreviated to SUA. The word 'all' is not included because it would be superfluous. No aircraft under 20kg are excluded from the scope of the ANO articles, so they apply to them all. There is provision for the CAA to issue certain permissions and to exempt - if they can come up with words that "ring fence" the flexibility they are allowing. But there is nothing in the ANO that separates what we would call a model from any other aircraft under 20kg. For the recent 'permission' to allow members of model associations to continue to fly SUA - not 'models' - above 400ft, the permission excluded aircraft with more than one lifting rotor - so that quadcopters can't use the exemption to exceed 400ft. But this is not the same as saying that quadcopters aren't model aircraft, or that anything under 20kg that is not a multi-rotor is a model aircraft. Also, the CAA is not obliged to issue exemptions, which, in effect, negate the rules that the government has decided to put in place. It would be better to influence the government to put in place rules that we can live with, rather than rely on persuading the CAA to disapply inappropriate rules afterwards.           Edited By Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 19:13:35 Edited By Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 19:14:16

I think we need to keep in mind that the questionnaire is not the consultation document; it is the means to respond to the consultation document. The consultation is open to the public, it is not aimed specifically at modellers. It is for everyone with any interest to respond, including aspiring commercial drone companies, drone flyers, mainstream aeromodellers and anyone sitting on a commercial passenger vehicle approaching Clapham who thinks drones are a good thing or a bad thing. My reading of the consultation document is that it is really about facilitating the commercial use of drones (which is what FINS is a for) and the enforcement powers to stop illegal, dangerous and hostile use of drones. It is not about model flying. If easy to fly auto-stabilised multi-rotors had not been invented there would be no plans to introduce new laws and there would be no consultation. Model flying activities were not the trigger for these proposals (we barely get a mention) and it follows that modellers are not the target of any of this. But our hobby is the potential collateral damage. My reading of the proposed police powers is that they are to enable them tackle the idiots who are using drones to try to take close ups photos of airliners in flight, and those using drones to do things like smuggling drugs and other items into prisons (which I guess is why they ask if prison officers should get some of the powers). I really don't have any concerns that the police will want to search my house because they see me flying my DB Scout at our club field. They couldn't justify wasting their man hours on me. The problem for us is that the government apparently can't write legislation that treats model flying (which, whether we like it or not, now includes flying quadcopters for photography, FPV and racing) differently from someone who buys a drone online and uses it for illegal or antisocial purposes. And we are stuck with that. Complaining about it won't make any difference. The best we can do is to respond to the consultation to try to help the government to strike a reasonable balance between what they want and what we want - (which is essentially to be left alone to do what we have been doing for decades).

Yes, I use 35Mhz and it is definitely still good. I got into model flying in the mid 1980's with traditional models, 2 stroke engines and Sanwa radio gear. In 1994 I stopped due to a house move, young family etc. but kept all my stuff. I started flying again last year having refurbished my old Wot4 (Mk1) and my Mick Reeves Gangster - yes honestly! They both flew last year and are still ready to go - guided using the two complete sets of the 35MHz Sanwa Conquest Mk2 radio I bought in 1984. I replaced all the old Nicads with new Nimh's, and both aircraft have different 2 stroke engines now. I brought the Wot4 down from an Irvine 61 to an Irvine 40 so I could use it as trainer to re-learn how to fly without scaring myself too much. The Gangster now has an Irvine 52 instead of the previous Super Tigre 45 - to use a bigger prop at lower rpm and so reduce the noise level. Yes I am an old traditional modeller. But I do now have some 2.4GHz gear and I am working up to getting some electric aeroplanes in the air before too long. Nevertheless, my next big project is going to be a traditional build Tigermoth powered by an OS80 four-stroke I bought from a club mate 30 years ago. The old stuff - radio, aircraft and engines - are all still usable and good fun too!

I'm hoping we do achieve the 1000's. The BMFA has 800+ affiliated clubs. If just 5 members of each club participate that should be 4,000 replies. I really hope we get at least that many.

I believe the reason why this is a set of click 'yes', 'no' or 'don't know' questions is so that the top level analysis will be automated. The computer will calculate numbers/percentages of votes for each question. For example, if the automatic analysis shows that 90% of responders agree that the minimum age of a drone operator should be 18, then that will be the decision and no-one will dig any deeper. On the other hand, if the majority answer 'no' to that question - rejecting the government proposal - then I expect someone will be given the job of extracting the reasons given by those who voted 'no' and putting them into a one page summary to feedback to the rulemakers.

I imagine a lot of people will groan (or worse) when they see the length of the BMFA, LMA guidance document and the length of the questionnaire - But if you follow the guide it should take you less than an hour to complete. If you think that is too much, consider the few dedicated individuals who spent many hours of their own time going through all of this and produced the guide to make it easy for you. They did that because responding to this consultation in large numbers is very important for the future of our hobby. Please lend your support.